(p. 90 p.)
- According to the defendants, the conditions of Lankri and the defendant were identical. The evidence showed that the same conditions were offered to all 3 of the plaintiff's employees, but after the other 2 employees retracted them, the defendant agreed to pay the defendant more:
Adv. Les-Gross: And tell me when you decided to stay with the plaintiff, didn't they improve your conditions so that you could stay?
The witness, Mr. Lankri: Part of the employee retention program that "Moonshot" has.
Adv. Les-Gross: What? You told me earlier that you earned 18 and now you say that as part of the retention of the employees, in order for you to stay, they offered better conditions, what was your salary that you agreed to stay?
The witness, Mr. Lankri: Is it also relevant to disclose such information?
Adv. Les-Gross: Relevant.
The witness, Mr. Lankri: Compare my salary.
Adv. Les-Gross: Compare your salary to your salary.
The witness, Mr. Lankri: At the time.
The Honorable Judge Gilzer-Katz: For salary?
Adv. Les-Gross: In "Kolmind".
(p. 21 p.)
- At the end of the proceeding, when the plaintiff's other 2 employees retracted their desire to move to work for the defendant, the defendant caused a breach of the agreement by offering the defendant a larger share of its shares - 4.5%.
- The defendant allocated to the defendant from the defendant's shares. The exception is to give shares to an ordinary employee. This is an unusual economic benefit (shares) as there are no options:
Adv. Fruchtman: This document, we issued it yesterday, but if it is not up to date, it is not up to date. I understand that besides Raz, there are no other employees at Kollimed who are shareholders?
The witness, Mr. Oz: With options, not stocks.
Adv. Fruchtman: I asked about stocks.
The witness, Mr. Oz: Nope.
The Honorable Judge Gilzer-Katz: Wait, I want to understand, when is he a shareholder?